tv [untitled] September 20, 2010 4:00am-4:30am PST
>> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to review the project with the modification that the hours of -- would end -- events would end on friday and saturday at 1:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on weeknights. no later than on week nights. with that motion, commissioner antonini? aye. sugaya aye olague aye mig. aye. motion passed unanimously, thank you. for the record i'll announce the planning commission has continued item 16 a and b for 3739 lloyd street until october 14th. you're now on item 17 for 5
seymour street. >> good evening commissioners. i'm david slindcy department staff. the project -- the project is to legalize construction done approximately 20 years ago without permit at 5 seem more street. the work proproceedsed to be -- proposed to be legalized is a trellis and the rear deck and replacement of several windows on the front and rear facades. under this current application, the dormer is proposed to be setback 10 feet from the front facade of the building. it is currently at five feet setback from the front facade of the building. then the reason for doing this is to make it less visible from the public right of way. the d.r. filers own number 7 seymour street north of the subject property. the filers believe the project adversely affects their
property, specifically their privacy, view, sun height and air quality. the filers believe the project doesn't meet the standards of the planning and building codes and poses a safety harvard. the project meets the standards of the planning code and is consistent with the resident the design guidelines. the department of building inspection will review the application for building code compliance prior to any permit issuance. it is believed that the impacts are within limits and accepted for propertys in a dense urban environment and that the legalization in -- and modification of the dormer, the legalization of the windows and the rear trellis would cause no significant impacts to the light, air and sun slight of the properties. the design team concluded that the design of the project is in keeping with the subject
character and the surrounding neighborhoods and that the project does not contain or great any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. the department recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve the project. >> d.r. requester? >> good evening. my name is marilyn. i oppose the project due to the fol -- first the conversion of the attic. this permit application is for the to legalize a dormer, it has been labeled as a dormer. it is actually an approximate 262 habitable space with a full bathroom that was built by the current owner, probably around 1992. it is located at the top flr of
a house -- and -- the amount of -- of floors, of -- are questionable because according to the space that is used on each floor, if you actually talking about a fourth floor, for a house that is labeled as a second story residence, it was -- it is a house that was built and designed in 1869 according to -- to insurance records. to only support two stories, and -- mr. montgomery the current owner, the one that built it -- portrayed himself as the contractor but he never been licensed, so -- it is an issue because -- this addition never wept through structural review. it has never gone through -- it is inadequately supported by two by four exterior walls.
it is a safety issue, the rope we know is because our house is a twin house to number five. there's never been mumming or heck cal inspections. you could actually hear the toilets, every time someone flushes the toilet on the fourth floor, the top floor, you could actually hear it. it is that loud. there's never been any plumbing or electrical inspections. the addition has 10 windows and three sky lights. the proposed. this addition, the permit application proposed to remove two windows by removing about 20 square feet from -- at the front facade as explained by mr. lindsey, you come from a -- already a setback of five feet. you only get rid of another five feet. and that is -- that takes care of two windows. you leave eight windows and -- it is -- it takes care of 22
square feet out of 562 square feet of habitable space. it does not meet code requirements. that is -- that has been -- it is a part of the -- our response to -- to the d.r. if you look at the picture, this is what -- this is what we see from -- from our house, this is the window here that is going to be removed, this two windows remain. it is definitely an issue with privacy. and that -- that is without counting the windows that were also -- also built ill legally. and please note that -- this -- these windows are two feet six inches away from the property line. that's also an issue and a problem with privacy. quh it comes to the trellis, the vert -- when it comes to the trellis and the vertical construction, this is what it looks like. this is the floor of the deck.
this is the actual trellis. it was -- it was also ill legally built by the current owner. the original roof trellis overhangs our property line. it has a lot of epoxy plastic over lattice and solid wall ralingeralinge which makes it a room, no the a deck. the whole structure is six inches away from our property line. and the trell hiss obstructs the -- the trellis on instructs the sunlight to our home. it is explained we're at the north 150eud. we're positioned north in comparison with the subject property. it definitely obstructs direct light and sunlight to our home and rear cottage and the rear yard. it is an invasion of privacy, its -- it is a monstrous -- it is a monstrous addition. so, thank you.
i don't know what else to say. yes. i have another picture, can i show it? yes? it is not a picture. it is a drawing. it does show this -- this is the property at five seymour. this is the actual trellis where it is located on top of the -- of the rear deck. this is the impact it lan they -- it has on our property. i want to add we're very impacted by this. >> thank you. >> speakers in favor of the d.r.? knot now project sponsor? are you in favor -- >> thank you. >> project sponsor? then you. >> good evening. my name is art, i'm the
architect of record. speaking for the project applicant, winston montgomery and his wife, peggy nelson who are here tonight. i like to first thank you for hearing this issue. i have pictures. i light to say in -- i like to say i'm asking the commission deny the review and approve the project as proposed. this was the finding determined by the man department in review of the project. i like to add no outcome for this d.r., application for d.r. has been decided to my knowledge and nothing has been shared with me in this regard as the d.r. applicant had pointed out in their rebuttal to some of the documentation that they submitted. the claims made by the applicant about the project are inaccurate
and a misrepresentation. in short the application for review is part of a larger reb trib bution of the an my cants against their neighbors on seymour street who approval opposed their own actions. the -- the lawrence, the applicants purchased their property at 7 seymour street around 2007. the stormer and the work that has been cited in their -- in their documentation has existed long before their arrival on seymour street, approximately 23 years. as we're aware, there are are many instances where existing structs or portions there of cannot be substantiated by any permit history. the building permit application, the d.r. applicants are challenging, seeks to bring in conformance work that has been identified without permit history. the concerns cited about life-safety issues and code compliance can only be met by completion of the permit application process. by further review and by the planning and building departments.
mr. lynn nahry who is a contractor himself, i would think would be aware of the . i cal permit process in san francisco. that the first step is -- is securing the planning entitlement for a project. again, something that has been in existence prior to -- to the linari's arrival. the application should be seen for what it is the application should be seen for what it is a vindictive action by the owners of 57 seymour stree. this commission's time and authority is being abused we feel by their application for discretionary review of the project. i strongly urge the commission to deny it and uphold the rights and requirements for bringing their property into conformance with all aapplicable planning and building codes. thank you. >> thank you. speakers in favor of the project sponsor?
my name is brian bertschmore. i live at number nine seymour. imthe person most affect bid the project because it is actually my southeastern view, the picture that mrs. linar showed of the windows was taken from their rooftop rather than anyplace where they could see from their side of the building. actually that's my view. and i've got no issues with the project. it fits this well with the neighborhood. it has been there -- you know, i have lived in the neighborhood 17 years and lived there three years. and it totally fits in with the neighborhood. and i would have never noticed that -- that it bunt a -- original except for the frivolous complaint by the linars. so again i support their project and thank you. >> thank you.
george gibb. i live at number three-3 seymour. lived there perhaps over 30 years. i'm an san francisco native. i wholeheartedly support the project for number 5. as the gentleman said, it is just -- it is just been -- vindictive ongoing squabble with number 7. they have contractors and they got there, and you know, the house was there and their son was there -- it -- it is -- it needs to be approved, period. winston is taking care of business in terms of plumbing, he -- you in san francisco. so what? i mean, you going to do something because you're flesh -- i hear the gates screaming down the street. i hear them open their gate. am i complaining about that?
no. i think the project should be approved for number five, thank you. >> thank you. >> additional speakers in favor of the project sponsor? if not, d.r. requester you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> izz just wanted to say that first -- our arrival three years ago does not warrant the legalization of -- of -- of a 562 square feet of habitable space. just because -- just because you arrive three years ago and -- these neighbors have been there for -- for many years. it doesn't make it okay. and acceptable. weave large window that is facing, the windows in question. we have a large window facing the windows in question. it is too bad i didn't take a picture from that view. we're directly within 2 1/2,
three feet, we have all of those windows facing our window, which weren't there before mr. -- mr. winston montgomery started building up and sideways and all over the place. the problem is without -- without following -- following city codes and -- and that's something that is part of the documents that have been submitted. so -- i understand he's wanting to legalize after the fact. it really negatively impacts our -- our property or family and -- it is nothing to do with the neighbors. so thank you. >> thank you. project sponsor, two minutes.
good evening. i'm winston montgomery, the owner of 5 seymour street. i heek to introduce more letters -- i like to introduce more letters on seymour street supporting my attempt to legalize the work that was done. i have done work in 1992. we did a kitchen addition with all full permits. i think i learned my lesson in 1987. so i don't think -- i don't think you know -- i'm a serial criminal that will here for this project. here's a copy of the alamo square newsletter. i was a previous board peb and we -- we -- my wife and i lived on the streets since 1987. we loved seymour street and we devoted a full addition of the alamo square newsletter to the houses, is the house history,
actually -- my house was built this -- in 19 -- i mean, 1873. the lynn nahrs house this 1875. they're not really twin houses. i interviewed neighbors and -- i like to introduce this too, i tried to make a contribution to the neighborhood. i'm in the position now where -- where -- i -- i the person or the individual who turned me in for doing work without permits will now not let me legalize those areas and that is not the -- we have a shared space too, they won't give me access to. so i could legalize that. thank you so much. i hope you -- you refuse the d.r. and allow me to legalize. i have to meet all of the codes, current codes and -- d.b.i. will
expect everything. thank you so much. >> commissioner, olague. >> i think -- commissioner olague: i'm going to move the project as proposed. >> a second? >> second. >> sug guy why -- >> sugaya? >> i like to know how this situation started. why do we the illegal windows and this kind 0 thing in the first place? >> project sponsor, i guess. mark, the project responser. i think the owner may speak further. i can say that -- that perhaps neutral discretion in 1987 it was a much different neighborhood. the east towers were less than half a block away. they certainly were taking some
risks and moving to this particular street, at that time. the house was rundown. it doesn't justify, but nonetheless, perhaps they may add further light on that issue. >> yes. we needed -- we had just bought the property -- just so -- we just didn't have the money to go through the -- through the -- the permit process. it was a mistake. the next -- when we hadate and little more money and we lived there for a while, we did everything with permitses then. permits then. so i regret doing it but i want to correct it now. it is -- going to be quite challenging to correct it but i'm determined to do that. >> thank you.
>> staff, as far as we know, the -- the building code issue in terms of space and habitability. it is not in our jurisdiction, but you know, you don't think there's an issue there? >> >> you're talking about the fourth floor? >> yeah. >> i think it has been in the present state for 20-plus years. the department of building inspection may have fire safety issues with that. but that will come -- after the planning review. >> okay. >> antonini. >> my understanding the dormer will be brought back from the street from where it is now. it actually will be an improvement and won't be as obvious from the street. it appears this may have been done on other structures. it was maybe done without
permits too. it is hard to say what the others were. for space reasons, the legalization is a good thing, i think. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor to not take discan cregsry review and approve the project as proposed. on the motion. aye. sugaya aye olague aye. miguel aye. thank you, that motion passes unanimously. >> commissioners, you're on item number 18. case number 2010, for 097 d to 30 prescott court. >> good evening, department staff. i'm here to present this project on behalf of mark luolen, the northwest team leader would normally do this but he's on
vacation. this project consists of an addition of a fourth floor set back 12 feet from the front property line. there's a rear addition and storage space on the ground floor to parking. the d.r. filers who do not live on the street but who own the building two doors down to the north, cite concerns about the scale of the proposed addition and the blockage of views from private property. the project was modified in response to preservation planning staff and r.d.t. comments. staff believes the fourth floor addition won't be visible from prescott street as shown in the traugs in your pact. staff and r.d.t. believe the height of the building as proposed is appropriate. this is illustrated in the view three you see from the parking lot, photo taken -- it is also in your packet.
based on these facts, staff does not believe that the project is extraordinary and we ask that you approve the project as proposed. >> d.r. request ir? d.r. requester? >> hi, commissioners. i'm the owner of 26 prescott. i want to correct one thing, i do live there. even though it is not very often. this is my second home. i live with my parents. i'm the only son to live with my parents. i'm not living this, okay? anyway, this are three issues i want to come out after the building was built, number one, was the sunlight issue. i want to show -- to show -- okay as you can see, we estimate
or we -- we check the sunlight. without and with the additional floor. without the additional fourth floor, we could see the sunlight from six -- can 6:30 a.m. going through the ally but with the additional floor, the fourth floor, we won't -- we won't be able to see -- to see the sunlight until 10:00 or 11:00 a.m. and the second issue is -- after -- actually this is on behalf of my i think whol is living at the veet of the properties, 35 prescott, and the privacy issue and -- it is apparently, we could see very obvious, someone could walk in the sun deck and can easily look through there -- their bedroom across the street, which is only 1650 aolly. it is not really a street. ee 1650 alley. it is not really a street.
and you could see the building without the additional fourth floor is very old building. they trying to build ads chron keet board, glass, stainless steel. that would destroy the consistency and look of the ally. >> thank you. >> actually i wanted, one more thing. we try to compromise with the project owners,, and to -- and to ask them to stop back more to avoid the privacy issue and the height issue. nothing happened. it seems like they don't want to compromise. thank you. >> thank you. >> speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> if you could both speak into
the microphone. otherwise, i can't pick you up. >> [speaking foreign language] translator: translator: i lived there for 20 years. frans he feels like the building higher is translator: he feels like the building is higher than what it is supposed to be. translator: he's concerned about the sunlight that -- that is stopping for his building. translator: that is -- to having the building built higher than --
[speaking foreign language] translator: he feels the higher the building is, it is going to effect, and effect the air quality, airflow. thank you. his name sun chen. do you want me to spell it? y-u-k, l-i-n. >> thank you. >> dibble speakers if favor of the d.r.? additional speakers in favor of the d.r.? >> project sponsor? >> my name is michael hennessey. i'm the architect for the project. i would like to introduce the project responser, the mayor that lives directly next door to the subject property. we have a letter from another
neighbor on prescott court that i would like to submit to the commissioners. a judy tourney who lives three doors to the north of the subject property. in addition there's a number of -- imans that i would like to go through to help clarify any contextual issues brought up by the requester. i should first state that the goal of the project is to ache an extremely dilapidated three-story building and modify it and do -- into a more habitable two-unit residentence. we're in the limb natting -- eliminating anything. this first image here -- not sure if you could see that or not. this is an aerial photograph locate the subject property, we're -- we're at the end of
prescott court, which prescott court is a 15-food -- 15-foot wide alley. we're next to a commercial structure and public school. this is mixed residential. that area. this is the -- the frontage of prescott court, the front elevation of the subject property 1 here. i would like to point out that the project sponsor celeste lives in the house. the d.r. requester lives in this property. and i should net given the width of prescott court you never experience the elevations of the buildings in this way. it is a very -- it is a very oblique view as you walk down prescott court, given its narrow -- their redimensions. given that is correct u you could tell there's a variety of -- of mixed heights this were there's buildings that are at